I realize that this is not 
an annoyance or a tech 
problem, but I need some 
help.  If I send an email  through 
OE6 on Win98 to 
a lawyer and I Bcc that email 
to others (as possible future 
witnesses), is there any way 
at all the lawyer can tell that 
I bcc'ed the message?

Tip: Run a free scan for common Windows errors ad

re: How blind is bcc? Friday, April 17, 2009 at 11:07 pm Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) Marjorie_6173 wrote: |[...]If I send an email through OE6 | Yeech. The WORST email program ever created--certainly the LEAST SECURE. |[...]to a lawyer and I Bcc that email to others (as possible future witnesses), |is there any way at all the lawyer can tell that I bcc'ed the message? | Nope. That's the whole point: Only the sender knows. ...and BCC is what people SHOULD be using MOST of the time; if you don't have someone's **permission** to publish his email address, you should **never** list that on the CC line of your email client. cache of http://www.russharvey.bc.ca/resources/email.html [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: How blind is bcc? Monday, April 20, 2009 at 8:28 pm Posted by Ms. Eagle (33640 messages posted) --"Yeech. The WORST email program ever created--certainly the LEAST SECURE." What a lovely greeting, gewg_. Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts File [Reply or follow-up to this message] Better email programs than what installs with Windows 98 -- was: ...bcc Tuesday, April 21, 2009 at 3:40 pm Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) gewg_ wrote: ||Yeech. The WORST email program ever created--certainly the LEAST SECURE. Ms. Eagle wrote: |What a lovely greeting, gewg_. Well, it doesn't get said *nearly* enough. Folks who are still using M$ products--ESPECIALLY those using Win9x-- should be constantly reminded / made aware that the online products that M$ produces are the source of the VAST majority of the infections acquired by computer users. Folks that use Unix-based systems (e.g. OS X, Linux, BSD, Solaris,...) have 0.00000001% of the malware problems that Windoze users do.[1] cache of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_computer_viruses ...and even those who still use Windoze but use *online apps* OTHER THAN M$'s, suffer MUCH less than their still-TOTALLY-mired-in-M$ brethren. Of course, the main threat comes from Internet Exploder (M$'s highly-insecure non-standards-compliant Web browser --which professional Web developers despise) and, of course, the versions that will work under Win9x are the WORST of that lot. IE appears on EVERY list of the world's WORST software, for example this one. (With its wide proliferation and corresponding swath of damage, I don't understand why IE isn't scored WORSE on that list than #8.) The **biggest** problem with Outbreaks In Excess is its bindings to Internet Exploder to render HTML. Once that happens (and it happens for MANY things that folks wouldn't think requires using a browser), you have an open wound waiting to be infected. ...and with IE being deeply integrated into Windoze (without due consideration for the security implications), THE WHOLE COMPUTER is vulnerable. There are also other security flaws within Outbreaks In Excess. THOSE WILL **NEVER** BE FIXED EITHER --especially not for those versions that will run under Win9x. OTOH, there are zero-cost replacements for the M$ apps which are MUCH more secure than any of the M$ stuff --again, ESPECIALLY stuff that will run under Win9x. There are 2 widely-used suites, either of which will replace BOTH of those dangerous M$ apps. http://www.seamonkey-project.org[2] http://www.opera.com/download/index.dml?platform=windows These will easily import your data from your old apps and you can pick up right where you left off. There are also individual apps to replace Internet Exploder cache of http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/all-older.html and to replace Outbreaks In Excess cache of http://www.mozillamessaging.com/thunderbird/all.html Again, these will easily import your data from your old app. NOTE: I have linked to the OLD versions of those Mozilla apps because Firefox 3 and Thunderbird 3 (the most-recent versions) will NOT work under Windows 98. (Well, not without some additional third-party OS tweaks.) All of these apps are under **active** development and QUICKLY receive security dates after any flaws are found. There are also NUMEROUS 21st-Century enhancements that make those a joy. ...and that is far from the full list of email apps that will run under Windows 98: cache of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_e-mail_clients#General (For more details, scroll down to the Operating System Support section.) [1] ...and the old "High-profile" vs "Security Through Obscurity" claim for why M$ products are so much less secure than non-M$ software has been debunked time and again via exemplars: The Apache web server software is the most-used Web server software and the number of exploits against it are DWARFED by the number of exploits against IIS (Microsoft's Internet Information Server software). The Berkely Internet Name Daemon is the most-used DNS server software and, again, the number of exploits against BIND are DWARFED by the number of exploits against Microsoft's DNS software. http://google.com/search?q=site:us-cert.gov+Exploits+Apache+OR+BIND The problem with Microsoft products is that they are DEFECTIVE BY DESIGN. I should also mention that both of those most-popular apps are Free Software and that having their source code freely available to hack *doesn't* adversely affect their security in the real world. [2] SeaMonkey also offers a chat client which can *optionally* be installed and an HTML editor that's in there as a bonus (while adding no real bloat). [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: double context menu Wednesday, April 22, 2009 at 2:34 am Posted by DanTheMan (140 messages posted) lol gee wrote alot we all hate M$ lol but i cant say much becasue i never uesd ie or outlook just always had fire fox and opera On Tuesday, April 21, 2009 at 3:40 pm, gewg_ wrote: >gewg_ wrote: >||Yeech. The WORST email program ever created--certainly the LEAST SECURE. > >Ms. Eagle wrote: >|What a lovely greeting, gewg_. > >Well, it doesn't get said *nearly* enough. >Folks who are still using M$ products--ESPECIALLY those using Win9x-- >should be constantly reminded / made aware >that the online products that M$ produces >are the source of the VAST majority of the infections acquired by computer users. > >Folks that use Unix-based systems (e.g. OS X, Linux, BSD, Solaris,...) >have 0.00000001% of the malware problems that Windoze users do.[1] >cache of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_computer_viruses > >...and even those who still use Windoze but use *online apps* OTHER THAN M$'s, >suffer MUCH less than their still-TOTALLY-mired-in-M$ brethren. > >Of course, the main threat comes from Internet Exploder >(M$'s highly-insecure non-standards-compliant Web browser >--which professional Web developers despise) >and, of course, the versions that will work under Win9x are the WORST of that lot. > >IE appears on EVERY list of the world's WORST software, >for example this one. >(With its wide proliferation and corresponding swath of damage, >I don't understand why IE isn't scored WORSE on that list than #8.) > > >The **biggest** problem with Outbreaks In Excess >is its bindings to Internet Exploder to render HTML. >Once that happens (and it happens for MANY things >that folks wouldn't think requires using a browser), >you have an open wound waiting to be infected. >...and with IE being deeply integrated into Windoze >(without due consideration for the security implications), >THE WHOLE COMPUTER is vulnerable. > >There are also other security flaws within Outbreaks In Excess. >THOSE WILL **NEVER** BE FIXED EITHER >--especially not for those versions that will run under Win9x. > >OTOH, there are zero-cost >replacements for the M$ apps >which are MUCH more >secure than any of the M$ stuff >--again, ESPECIALLY stuff that will run under Win9x. > >There are 2 widely-used suites, >either of which will replace BOTH of those dangerous M$ apps. >http://www.seamonkey-project.org[2] >http://www.opera.com/download/index.dml?platform=windows > >These will easily import your data from your old apps >and you can pick up right where you left off. > >There are also individual apps to replace Internet Exploder >cache of http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/all-older.html > >and to replace Outbreaks In Excess >cache of http://www.mozillamessaging.com/thunderbird/all.html > >Again, these will easily import your data from your old app. > >NOTE: I have linked to the OLD versions of those Mozilla apps >because Firefox 3 and Thunderbird 3 (the most-recent versions) >will NOT work under Windows 98. >(Well, not without some additional third-party OS tweaks.) > >All of these apps are under **active** development >and QUICKLY receive security dates after any flaws are found. >There are also NUMEROUS 21st-Century enhancements that make those a joy. > >...and that is far from the full list of email apps that will run under Windows 98: >href="http://google.com/search?q=cache:-JfDm911sKYJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_e-mail_clients+Microsoft.Windows+Thunderbird+GPL+utc+proprietary-*+utc+Opera.Mail+utc+Evolution+utc+Pegasus+SeaMonkey.Mail+utc+utc+utc+utc+Zimbra+utc+utc+utc+Claws#General"> >cache of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_e-mail_clients#General >(For more details, scroll down to the Operating System Support section.) > > >[1] ...and the old "High-profile" vs "Security Through Obscurity" claim >for why M$ products are so much less secure than non-M$ software >has been debunked time and again via exemplars: > >The Apache web server software is the most-used Web server software >and the number of exploits against it >are DWARFED by the number of exploits against IIS >(Microsoft's Internet Information Server software). > >The Berkely Internet Name Daemon is the most-used DNS server software >and, again, the number of exploits against BIND >are DWARFED by the number of exploits against Microsoft's DNS software. >http://google.com/search?q=site:us-cert.gov+Exploits+Apache+OR+BIND > >The problem with Microsoft products is that they are DEFECTIVE BY DESIGN. > >I should also mention that both of those most-popular apps are Free Software >and that having their source code freely available to hack >*doesn't* adversely affect their security in the real world. > > >[2] SeaMonkey also offers a chat client which can *optionally* be installed >and an HTML editor that's in there as a bonus (while adding no real bloat). [Reply or follow-up to this message] Tip: Use one of the [Reply or follow-up to this message] links above to add a message to this thread Search this forum Start a new thread on a different subject Report abuse of the forum Return to the Windows 98 Discussion Forum